| From: | David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Phil Florent <philflorent(at)hotmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Internal error XX000 with enable_partition_pruning=on, pg 11 beta1 on Debian |
| Date: | 2018-07-17 00:21:00 |
| Message-ID: | CAKJS1f-z9iYfBgsEGDo1DxUPN63xF+v+D5p4cztQtH0Smbh-ug@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 16 July 2018 at 06:55, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> I started to look at this patch. I think this is basically the right
> direction to go in, but I'm not terribly happy with the details of the
> data structure design.
I've made an attempt at addressing the issues that I understood.
I've not done anything about your Bitmapset for non-matching
partitions. I fail to see how that would improve the code. But please
feel free to provide details of your design and I'll review it and let
you know what I think about it.
--
David Rowley http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| v2-0001-Fix-run-time-partition-pruning-for-UNION-ALL-pare.patch | application/octet-stream | 61.9 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Langote | 2018-07-17 00:22:39 | Re: partition pruning doesn't work with IS NULL clause in multikey range partition case |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2018-07-17 00:04:34 | Re: Fix error message when trying to alter statistics on included column |